Sorry, but this only applies to your own mindset. I've given a multitude of direct citations. You've done nothing to show how anything I've posted is wrong or incorrectly summarized.
That whole discussion you are pulling stuff from is about whether the 14th Amendment is just about slaves, or is also about children of citizen parents and children of foreigners who are born here.
The quote says very clearly that the court was committed to the view of excluding children of citizen parents and children of foreign subjects. This makes sense in context because it cites Minor for the former and Elk for the latter. That's exactly what both decisions said.
If they are NOT excluded, then they are in.
They ARE excluded. this doesn't say anyone is NOT excluded. It only says that Miller didn't understand this commitment at the time the Slaughterhouse Cases were written.
Up above the Wong Kim Wong judges, USING JUST THEIR OWN WORDS, said:
Wong kim WONG????? Sorry, but two Wongs don't make you right. Not even close. The common law argument is what ydoucare refers to as obiter dicta. Gray was resorting to common law to try to give more teeth to the 14th amendment. There had already been three cases that rejected how far it extended: Slaughterhouse, Minor and Elk. Under the principle of stare decisis, courts are expected not to overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so, soooo Gray worked very deliberately to find a way to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen without overturning the court's own precedents. He did that by applying a domicil and residence criteria to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. It's all there. Take the time to read it and educate yourself.
I have been learning a whole lot of stuff in the last few weeks just by reading these cases, and if you put aside your pre-conceived stupid idea that the 14th Amendment is different from the natural born stuff in the big Constitution, maybe you could learn stuff, too.
Sorry, but this isn't a preconceived idea. Originally, I thought Gray was equating native-born with natural-born, but the more I read the decision, I started to see how he deliberately made a distinction. Again, this was so he could respect earlier decisions and not overturn them. I'm not the one who made the distinction between natural-born and citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. He did. Here are HIS words once again. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Think about this for a minute. Gray says Waite construed the birth provision of the 14th amendment and said that the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, Gray is telling us specifically by citing this passage that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship.
Contrast this to the later part of the decision when Gray defines what he calls "citizenship by birth." Note that he does NOT have to look elsewhere for a defintition. The definition for this term is found specifically in the Constitution — via the 14th amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
This entire section is in direct refence to the 14th amendment. He says that IT contemplates two SOURCES of citizenship (note that it is not two TYPES, but two SOURCES). One source is naturalization, which is NOT defined in the 14th amendment, but defined by "under the authority and in the forms of law." This means naturalization is controlled by Congress. In contrast, what he calls "citizenship by birth" (note: he does NOT uses the terms "native-born citizen" nor "natural-born citizen") is defined, not by Congress, but by the 14th amendment itself: "under the circumstances defined in the Constitution." The ONLY circumstances that define any citizenship at birth in the Constitution are from the 14th amendment, which is dependent on the subject clause.
So there you have it. These are two distinct terms for citizenship and two distinct definitions. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the law and OUTSIDE the Constitution. Citizenship by birth is defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment.
WRONG. NBC is defined in common LAW, and the common law on this issue was incorporated into the Constitution by the 14th Amendment. Remember what I have told you before:
Ex Parte Chin King in 1888: By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.
The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents.
This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country.
THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND.
The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
===================
Plus, it says it again in Wong Kim Ark. Remember when I showed you this???:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.
You are just working overtime to NOT understand this so you can keep being a Vattle Birther. Which, I don't understand why you work sooo hard to misconstrue something which is really pretty simple.